It's off topic, but I think any parent who would alter their pregnancy because their unborn child is predicted to be gay is a monster.

Reasonable minds can disagree about gay marriage, but the thought of an unborn genocide or "prevention" against homosexuals disgusts me, and I hope it's not something that ever gains cultural acceptance.

It's off topic, but I think any parent who would alter their pregnancy because their unborn child is predicted to be gay is a monster.

Reasonable minds can disagree about gay marriage, but the thought of an unborn genocide or "prevention" against homosexuals disgusts me, and I hope it's not something that ever gains cultural acceptance.

All I can say is, it must suck to be a gay Celtics fan to come to a basketball forum to find out there are some people, while having never met you at all, can not only give a hoot about you but are so opposed to your happiness despite it having no affect on them whatsoever. While cheering for the same team too. So creepy. Talk about ubuntu.

Sorry guys, but statistically a lot of these people will die off pretty soon, so hang in there.

Examples? Seems like a crass generalization and mis-characterization of the thread's discussion.

And your last point is so far from what I said, that I can only assume you are trying to bait me.

2. Saying that we should have the debate - the whole point of judicial action like we saw in MA and may see at the SC is to AVOID debate. This is short sighted in my opinion, because it will turn an issue that is becoming mainstream accepted (SSM) and make it more divisive.

I don't think it will have the same effect that it did on the Voldemort subject, which I assume is what you are referring to. The reason is, acceptance/rejection of SSM is directly correlated with age. My favorite conservative ever, the old fuddy-duddy George Will, put this very nicely this past Sunday.

Of course if that's true there isn't an urgent need for judicial action, or at least it makes sense for SC to use tenth amendment and let states decide, without creating federal statute.

Sorry they didn't meet your scorecard for perfection, but seriously what have you done that you can criticize the epically large contributions of the founders?

"Seriously", there is no requirement that one must meet in order to be critical of the founders. And this is something that the founders would agree with.

I read the comment I was responding to as "who cares what the system of gov't we have is or what philosophy underpins it" -- my point isn't that his criticism is unallowed, just that it was nonsensical.

Specifically he indicts Jeffersons philosophy because Jefferson didn't do enough for liberty of some types of people. I think its fair to turn the tables and ask why we should take his word for it, since he's set actions as the bar for evaluating ideas.

What is the most efficient/effective way to ensure that gay men and lesbian women are able to get married legally anywhere in America with all the rights, responsibilities and benefits that heterosexual couples are afforded?

I don't care at all about political ideological consistency, I care that people are not systematically discriminated against in my country. I would feel the same way about slave's rights, about women's right to vote, about rights of blacks to drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools as whites.

I fully understand that there is an opposing view - many people believe that gays should not have the right to marry. Perhaps that is the debate we could, and should, have (after all, everything else is a smokescreen, this is all that really matters in this discussion).

There are a few things I disagree with:1. Equating not creating SSM with abolishing slavery.

2. Saying that we should have the debate - the whole point of judicial action like we saw in MA and may see at the SC is to AVOID debate. This is short sighted in my opinion, because it will turn an issue that is becoming mainstream accepted (SSM) and make it more divisive.

3. That just because this is a good (not proven, but I'll concede here for the bigger point) we should get to it as efficient as possible.

On number 3 - you might want to have some humility yourself. It's easy to lambast Jefferson now (or Washington too.) Even Adams a committed abolitionist agreed to the grand compromise of slavery as a state issue in order to ensure the union. But its completely without context to say they didn't do enough. Every little freedom you have today comes from what these men did. Sorry they didn't meet your scorecard for perfection, but seriously what have you done that you can criticize the epically large contributions of the founders? You might also have some humility to understand that these men were experts on freedoms and political economy, and bestowed a unique gift of constitutional republic for us. And that gift is the root cause for the posterity you see today.

If their is to be rule of law, then there must be rule of law. A good constitutional ruling from the SC with a bad political outcome for me is much better IMO than a bad ruling with a good political outcome. This is the exact mentality I see arising across the liberal/progressive spectrum of the left, its utopianism at its core, and it's poison sooner or later, regardless of how sweet the first drips are.

I am certain that Jefferson was brilliant and I know that the founders created something I couldn't have come close to creating. They were concerned about forming a more perfect union, and my statements don't point out mild imperfections but a few pretty grand ones. Could I have done better? Of course not. I also criticize Celtics players and I am equally certain I am not as good as any of them.

Jefferson and other founders were in my corner from the beginning (I am white and male). He (not alone obviously) created something great, but note that every freedom I enjoy was not afforded to all Americans and it took a hellacious civil war, not the constitution, to resolve the country's most horrific freedom issue. I apologize if I seemed like I think I am smarter than they were (I don't at all), or if I seemed like I think I have contributed more to the world than our founders (I know that I haven't).

I also didn't equate the the plight of gays to the plight of slaves - you did. Wrong certainly has gradations (gay discrimination is not on the same playing field as slavery), but wrong is still wrong (reminder: wrong to me, not asserting biblical wrong here).

Lastly, something that is discriminatory should absolutely be addressed efficiently. Not sure I understand the value system that would be OK with inefficiently addressing discrimination.

Of course if that's true there isn't an urgent need for judicial action, or at least it makes sense for SC to use tenth amendment and let states decide, without creating federal statute.

We saw basically the same argument used for integration. Millions of LGBT Americans, who have to put up with the countless indignities of everyday life in these United States, have a different viewpoint on the subject. Those days don't come back, even if the end result is more or less generationally inevitable.

We've had SCOTUS decisions that were ahead of the wave and perhaps needlessly devisive, but I don't really see this as being the same sort of thing.

Quote

I read the comment I was responding to as "who cares what the system of gov't we have is or what philosophy underpins it" -- my point isn't that his criticism is unallowed, just that it was nonsensical.

And my point was, what does he have to do with it? Surely if the criticism is nonsense, it's possible to argue that without bringing up someone's contributions to American democracy.

Personally I think it's completely fair to point out that Jefferson was a Founding Hypocrite as well as a Founding Father.

What is the most efficient/effective way to ensure that gay men and lesbian women are able to get married legally anywhere in America with all the rights, responsibilities and benefits that heterosexual couples are afforded?

I don't care at all about political ideological consistency, I care that people are not systematically discriminated against in my country. I would feel the same way about slave's rights, about women's right to vote, about rights of blacks to drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools as whites.

I fully understand that there is an opposing view - many people believe that gays should not have the right to marry. Perhaps that is the debate we could, and should, have (after all, everything else is a smokescreen, this is all that really matters in this discussion).

There are a few things I disagree with:1. Equating not creating SSM with abolishing slavery.

I agree with this, but he also relates it to women's suffrage, and many relate it to the civil rights movement. I think those are more accurate.

Quote

2. Saying that we should have the debate - the whole point of judicial action like we saw in MA and may see at the SC is to AVOID debate. This is short sighted in my opinion, because it will turn an issue that is becoming mainstream accepted (SSM) and make it more divisive.

This is a completely screwed up workaround that kind of makes sense. But I just can't reconcile doing/saying nothing about it with a positive federal outcome. I can't think of a time that happened with a divisive rights issue.

I'll give you a hint you aren't allowed to talk about on this board. SC ruling turned it into a culture war issue from more of a regional issue.

This is kind of off topic, but I wonder if SSM will end up being a side note:

If this research is true it may mean that (I'm not putting a value judgement on these approaches, just saying they are likely outcomes):

1. Homosexuality can be tested for and thus like Down Syndrome a lot of parents will not have those babies won't be born in the future

and/or

2. That some sort of "vaccine" for homosexuality will be developed.

In this case (speculation) I think fertility amongst couples that don't want to have a homosexual child would be >>> than couples that do. Which might mean the end of homosexuality (or a vast reduction in their numbers.)

I just want to be clear - I don't think this is a good thing - I just think its likely given what I know/believe.

Seems like a good place to add my completely unfounded hypothesis about being Gay.

I know this is a leap – but could we be witnessing the evolution of the human race before our very eyes? My theory is that humans are actively adapting a countermeasure against the greatest natural predator we have on Earth;ourselves.

I know this is a leap – but could we be witnessing the evolution of the human race before our very eyes? My theory is that humans are actively adapting a countermeasure against the greatest natural predator we have on Earth;ourselves.

Probably not. Homosexuality has been around for a very long time, and isn't limited to just human beings.

What is the most efficient/effective way to ensure that gay men and lesbian women are able to get married legally anywhere in America with all the rights, responsibilities and benefits that heterosexual couples are afforded?

I don't care at all about political ideological consistency, I care that people are not systematically discriminated against in my country. I would feel the same way about slave's rights, about women's right to vote, about rights of blacks to drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools as whites.

I fully understand that there is an opposing view - many people believe that gays should not have the right to marry. Perhaps that is the debate we could, and should, have (after all, everything else is a smokescreen, this is all that really matters in this discussion).

There are a few things I disagree with:1. Equating not creating SSM with abolishing slavery.

I agree with this, but he also relates it to women's suffrage, and many relate it to the civil rights movement. I think those are more accurate.

Quote

2. Saying that we should have the debate - the whole point of judicial action like we saw in MA and may see at the SC is to AVOID debate. This is short sighted in my opinion, because it will turn an issue that is becoming mainstream accepted (SSM) and make it more divisive.

This is a completely screwed up workaround that kind of makes sense. But I just can't reconcile doing/saying nothing about it with a positive federal outcome. I can't think of a time that happened with a divisive rights issue.

I'll give you a hint you aren't allowed to talk about on this board. SC ruling turned it into a culture war issue from more of a regional issue.

This is kind of off topic, but I wonder if SSM will end up being a side note:

If this research is true it may mean that (I'm not putting a value judgement on these approaches, just saying they are likely outcomes):

1. Homosexuality can be tested for and thus like Down Syndrome a lot of parents will not have those babies won't be born in the future

and/or

2. That some sort of "vaccine" for homosexuality will be developed.

In this case (speculation) I think fertility amongst couples that don't want to have a homosexual child would be >>> than couples that do. Which might mean the end of homosexuality (or a vast reduction in their numbers.)

I just want to be clear - I don't think this is a good thing - I just think its likely given what I know/believe.

Seems like a good place to add my completely unfounded hypothesis about being Gay.

I know this is a leap – but could we be witnessing the evolution of the human race before our very eyes? My theory is that humans are actively adapting a countermeasure against the greatest natural predator we have on Earth;ourselves.

I doubt that homosexuality exists in higher percentages today than ever -- no way to prove it, but we do at least know that homosexuality has existed throughout recorded history. I would guess this is not an adaptive evolutionary strategy. We've seen all sorts of more efficient and effective ways to reduce human populations.

According to the Iranian President there are no gay people in Iran, so that's got to be an outlier.

Oy...

Yep... part of the reason why I don't see SSM as the critical civil rights issue of our time is the actual oppression going on in these countries, like Iran, against homosexuals, Christians, & women to name a few groups.

I think SSM has a lot more to do with a desire for social acceptance and normalization, which won't be driven by legislation anyways.

According to the Iranian President there are no gay people in Iran, so that's got to be an outlier.

Oy...

Yep... part of the reason why I don't see SSM as the critical civil rights issue of our time is the actual oppression going on in these countries, like Iran, against homosexuals, Christians, & women to name a few groups.

I think SSM has a lot more to do with a desire for social acceptance and normalization, which won't be driven by legislation anyways.

That seems like splitting hairs to me.

For people in America, how LGBTQ people are treated in America should be more important to them than how they're treated in Iran by virtue of proximity.

I also think that social acceptance and normalization is a whole lot closer in the US than it was even ten years ago, and we're a better country for it.

IMO, YMMV, etc.

Logged

At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

For people in America, how LGBTQ people are treated in America should be more important to them than how they're treated in Iran by virtue of proximity.

I also think that social acceptance and normalization is a whole lot closer in the US than it was even ten years ago, and we're a better country for it.

IMO, YMMV, etc.

I agree and disagree. Disagree that its more important. I agree is more realistic they can make a difference.

Agree with social/normalization point.

I do think its fair to keep these things in perspective - people act like its the human rights issue of our time - its not even top ten.

And I think the majority of the emphasis on the issue is about acceptance, except I don't think a law will change that - a judicial ruling might harden some hearts, but legislative and ballot victories will follow and reinforce popular opinion.